28.5.2011 12:57, T.J. Crowder kirjoitti:
> Is the current practice is to comment in the mailing list or on the bug
> report?
That's what I wonder too. Both ways are supposed to work, but that's not
really an answer.
> `b`, `i`, `u`, and `s` (strikethrough) are all currently in the
> specification[1].
All with completely rewritten semantics. Most probably, few authors will
pay any addition to the new, rather contrived semantics and will keep
using those elements for physical markup the old way.
This means that anyone who wishes to conform to HTML5 in old documents
should revise _all_ use of such markup and replace it either by
appropriate semantic markup, such as <strong>, <em>, or <cite>, or with
the use of CSS. In _rare_ cases, preserving <b>, <i>, etc. might be the
right move, as the intended meaning _accidentally_ coincides with the
new definition.
That's the theory, and I think it does not have much chance of becoming
reality. It will cause some confusion among a semantics-oriented
minority, not much more.
Here's how I would define the <b> element, for example:
The <b> element indicates bold text. In situations where bolding cannot
be used, user agents may ignore <b> markup or render it in a manner that
is widely understood by users as simulating bolding. Authors should not
use the <b> element except when quoting external sources (such as
printed matter) containing bold text and for texts that are rendered in
bold by convention, such as vector symbols in mathematics.
> `font` was always broken, IMHO, particularly the `size` feature. I think
> applying CSS to something semantic wherever possible, and falling back
> on an introduced span if necessary, is best.
I don't see why anyone would miss the <font> element, except in
situations where you need to format HTML documents without CSS, and such
situations are rare. The only situation where font would actually make
sense is a context where the text _discusses_ fonts and shows examples
of texts in different fonts. Then it's a matter of content, not just
casual style preference. But this case is probably too rare to have an
impact.
> `center` *should* have a viable CSS alternative
<Center>...</center>, being formally equivalent to <div
align="center">...</div> but implemented inconsistently, has always been
a problem.
The original poster had a long wishlist (the attributes align, alink,
vlink, link, text, background, bgcolor,hspace, border, vspace, type,
valign, width, height, cellpadding and cellspacing), so I guess he
basically meant that presentational markup should not be obsoleted. It
is probably too late now, though some details are still under
consideration and some presentational markup might be "saved".
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/